About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 12
CNNW 6
CSPAN 6
CNN 4
CSPAN2 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 57
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 57 (some duplicates have been removed)
to settle on passing background legislation and calling that a win. on abc over the weekend, harry reid pointedly would not commit to supporting an assault weapons ban. >> i didn't vote for the assault weapons last time because it didn't make sense but i'll take a look at it. i think everyone acknowledges we should do some background checks. >> reid said the senate would move the bill through the judiciary committee, it's unlikely to include a gun ban. though reid has said california senator dianne feinstein will have an opportunity to present the provision as an amendment once the bill reaches the senate floor. remember there's a whole bunch of red tape democrats want to actively cascade a vote against the assault weapons ban so they can show they are pro-gun. >> the super bowl ad new york city mayor's group ran in the d.c. market focused on one part of the gun control bills and that's the background check, one pointing out the nra at one time supported closing the gun show loophole. >> we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at
are in the majority, it's a little bit of a greater responsibility. harry reid has to make the decision whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. there are marginal members in his caucus that might not want to take these issues up. he is responsible for them in some sense. i do believe the mayor is very much involved in this issue. we've been spending a lot of time lobbying members of congress, members of the senate on both republicans and democrats. i do believe that the senate is going to take these issues up. i do believe harry reid is going to bring comprehensive gun bill to the floor. maybe in different pieces. it may be one package. that will be his decision. i do believe something is going to pass in a bipartisan way out of the senate. you saw politico reporting there was a bipartisan group, republicans and democrats from rural and urban states who are working on a comprehensive package on a background checks. i thinkure going to see something get through the senate, and then i think you will have house republicans -- not the majority of them. some number. 20, 30, 40. who will be
party lines, but yesterday republicans blocked an up or down simple majority vote planned by harry reid, so tomorrow the majority leader has scheduled a cloture vote, or if we go to the rule video, the only procedure by which the senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter and thereby overcome a filibuster. the procedure requires 60 votes, so now democrats will need support from 60 senators just to overcome the filibuster and schedule a vote on chuck hagel. >> there has never in the history of the country been a filibuster of a defense secretary nominee. never. chuck hagel had nothing to do with the attack in benghazi. is that something they need to have on their resume? i filibustered one of the president's nominees. is that what they want? >> senator john mccain who once said he would oppose a filibuster of hagel because it would set "a bad precedent" is changing his tune. he tells "foreign policy magazine" my position right now is that i want an answer to the question. that question totally unrelated to chuck hagel as defense secretary is what pre
of trying to protect mr. menendez, a new jersey democrat, the senate majority leader harry reid needs to remove his gavel pending credible resolution by the senate ethics committee of the swirling accusations of misconduct. is senator menendez in -- in trouble or at least in danger of temporarily losing? he just became the chair of this committee? >> i had a chance to ask harry reid about this at a news conference a couple of weeks ago, and senator reid is giving no indication whatsoever that he is going to take the gavel away, and senator menendez is right about some of the allegations, some of the others that popped up in the conservative news side, the daily caller, no evidence to correspond roborate. the political -- >> almost two years late. >> and did not put them on his disclosure form is a problem for him. >> two weeks ago is one thing. now -- i mean "the new york times" calling for a democrat to remove a democrat from a committee is fairly noteworthy. >> let's say new jersey doesn't exactly have the best record when it comes to ethics in government. what "the new york times"
this as the four horsemen of the apocalypse coming is liquidation. >> does your reporting suggest that harry reid has in fact explicitly rejected as a senate leader, a request by the republicans to add more flexibility to the cuts? >> well, we don't know that in particular, but what we do know is that the white house, they had an official down in front of the senate he recently and they were asked about giving this, being given this flexibility provision and they ultimately came back and said, we would reject any efforts to actually lessen the pain of this sequester. and so, the president here is getting himself into a situation where he's warning about all of these doom and gloom. the republicans are giving him a way out of this and they're increasingly looking to be rejecting that just so that they can continue to bring down the hammer. >> and the president, dan, is insisting not just on other spending cuts, alternatives, or even weakening the cuts, he's saying, look, i want a tax increase, too. >> what is that all about? i mean, we just had a huge tax increase, that is already, according to th
slammed harry reid for saying he hadn't read dianne feinstein's bill banning assault weapons. >> how can harry reid, a fellow democrat, and i'm willing to criticize him, say he hasn't read the bill. this is an emergency. let's knock off the washington baloney and support the president and get some things done. >> the white house wants to overload washington's political circuits. an effort to see what it can get through congress without letting congress and particularly congressional republicans, define what issues get addressed. republican leaders are making it clear they prefer to talk about just one thing before the march budget shutdown. >> this was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the congress. but it's not coming. i think that's too bad. our economy could use some presidential leadership right now. >> and top senate republican mitch mcconnell was just as eager to talk budget hitting the floor to slam democrats for floating new revenue proposals. >> this is just another opportunity to trot out the democrat focus group approved policy stunt. if this is
, we saw that harry reid and mitch mcconnell struck, is based in part, it expedites some nominations if they come from rogue individual senators or a handful, but it's based in part on a kind of gentleman's agreement that you're not going to misuse the filibuster in nominations in the same way. and if you see a filibuster of hagel in this case where there is a clear majority and more for his confirmation, and you know, think about this, we've got a sequester coming up, which could cause enormous potential damage to national security, you're going to keep the defense secretary from being in place to help to administer that. we've got a war going on. i think you'd have to, if you were in harry reid's shoes, begin to rethink what you're going to do with the rules. >> as an institutional scholar such as yourself, hearing that come from you carries a lot of weight. norm ornstein, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, co-author of "it's even worse than it looks." thank you for being with us tonight. it's great to have your perspective. >> thank you so much. >> all right. w
did because harry reid spent $2 million attacking him as a conservative during the republican primary. he said he never voted for a tax increase and always pro-life and supported a balanced budget amendment, and the object was help nominate the weakest republican candidate possible, so they'd have a chance -- >> but you set yourself up as a politbureau and the theory on republicanism is to lit the local state -- >> rand paul had a right and everybody has a chance in markets and let people go in and participate, the opposite of politbureau and the more who participate the better off we are and the more we examine the quality of the candidates the more likely we have fewer christine o'donnell's and more ra rand paul joos what do you think of the republican party's decision, temporarily, to block the nomination of the defense secretary for the first time in our history. >> why wouldn't they? in the end he's probably going to be confirmed, but in the meantime this is an opportunity -- the president thought in nominating chuck hagel he'd put him out there and rub republicans' noses in it a
to harry reid. bill: that is cab fare, by the way. steve hayes, senior writer, "weekly standard." fox news contributor. good morning to you. >> good morning bill. >> president is on the road. no meetings to talk about this between senate leaders and house leaders. no meetings with the administration. friday there is no session on the schedule for congress. >> right. what's different about this one is that in the past, the fiscal cliff, these other things you at least staff to staff contact and negotiations and ongoing discussions, sort of largely out of public view. that even is not happening in this scenario. i think we're likely to see the sequester come march first and see how it plays out the next month. bill: if it comes, this deadline is little different from what we've seen in the past, steve. >> right. bill: this is gradual. make it works its way into the system a little bit at a time during the month of march. for sure during april. >> right. bill: it seems to have a different feel. there is not the urgency there. >> it does. this is where the white house is having, creating some
things coming out of harry reid. what about the assault weapon ban and the likelihood of that or is your focus more on handgun control and the gun trafficking bill? >> our focus here is the gun trafficking bill. and let me tell you why. i'm a strong supporter of the other provisions that you just talked about. machine guns and assault weapons and clips, high capacity clips. but this is something that we've gotten republicans to agree with us on. in other words, this is the first time in a long time in the house where we've got co-sponsorship with republicans. and we had two yesterday and now we've added another three. and we expect that before it's all over, we'll have quite a few folks on both sides of the aisle and we'll have a bipartisan bill. another thing that's significant about this. you spent a lot of time looking at "fast and furious." during the "fast and furious" hearings, the atf officers who came to testify before us basically begged us to create a drug trafficking law. because basically what they were saying is that it was almost impossible for them to get convictions of th
been humiliated by his own people with the plan "b" debacle. and he tells harry reid to go [ bleep ] himself. >> harry reid looks up and he says, what? excuse me? and boehner says it again. >> hey, listen. senator reid and i are close friends. we've got to work together. but just like any close friends, sometimes you just need to clear the air. and we did. >> i can't imagine that happening. >> oh, gee. oh, that's never happened on capitol hill before, has it, michael? >> i was talking about between us. that's okay. >> that would never happen. so michael, take us behind the scenes. here i suspect pass is going to be prologged several times in the future. >> well, exactly right. when i look forward to the state of the union address tomorrow night, i'm looking forward to seeing john boehner and joe biden sitting behind barack obama, especially after what i learned in the last six months digging into the fiscal cliff story and beyond. it's just fascinating, you guys. the personalities and the clash in politics that surround it. we got pretty deeply inside of it and a very good intervie
in this process. you've got republican senators miffed at harry reid for not honoring the whole -- you have him having ripped on republicans. there are so many issues at play here. looks like he's going to get confirmed. and it's also an opportunity for republicans to ask some tough questions on benghazi, all of which haven't been answered yet. >> i want to go to something you said when we were together last time, which is you were concerned about his performance -- >> absolutely. >> and you can't help by wonder what bill cohen wonders, which is is he going to be a weak secretary? >> he didn't have a strong hearing then, but all the reasons listed for chuck hagel, none has to do with any pending issues before the pentagon. it has to do with he's been mean to president bush. he's been mean to john mccain. this process has said more about republicans than quite franklin it has said about chuck -- >> what about this issue of him -- is he going to be in charge of the pentagon? >> i think that is going to be the test for chuck hagel when he is sworn in fairly quickly and fairly soon as the next defe
. i don't think it does sound, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, it has try to fix ceqa station. we have done nothing in the senate. -- to fix sequestration. we have done nothing in the senate. we are not doing anything in the senate. so, harry, please take the president's proposal or come up with one of your own. put it on the floor and let's start voting. if you do not like what we are doing, come up with your own. we have our fingerprint as republicans on this sequestration idea. it was the president's idea that we come as the republican party agreed to it. we got in this mess together and we will have to get out together. mr. president, helped lead us. -- help lead us. and on like anybody else on this stage, you are the commander in chief -- unlike anyone else on this stage. do you really want your legacy to be that you let the american congress into a deal that would destroy the military at the time it would need it the most? do you want to pivot to asia? how do you do that with 232 ships? when about iran acquiringhave you modernize the f-16 and the f-18? had you go
. how d special report? how are you doing. >> reporter: good morning, bill. bill: harry reid is talking about this potentially on the floor of the senate. if there is news we'll bring it to our viewers. graham says the debate is not over, it has not been serious. what gives? >> reporter: a couple of things, one is confirmation hearings matter. this was not a good showing for chuck hagel in this confirmation hearing and despite the fact that you have other controversial cabinet nominees who have potentially bumpy confirmation hearings hagel's did not go well, and even folks on the democratic side will acknowledge that, and that has made it even more difficult. then you have the additional problem, from his supporters' point of view, that there are calls for speeches that did not come out for the committee that hagel gave and they never received, and now you have one speech, for example, that a group says that they can get to the committee by friday. its already out of committee, but -- so now it's on the house floor. this vote happens, they need 60 votes. democrats have a 55-45 vote marg
between democratic and republican senators and then between harry reid and mitch mcconnell, that's the way it's supposed to be done. a few days later we had a bipartisan proposal involving immigration. a lot of detailed work to be done, but the structure, the framework was there on 0 a bipartisan basis. so there are possibilities of bipartisanship but on the other hand, this is still a partisan situation. we have a republican house, a split democratically krold senate, democratic president, but if you do the math, chris, if you do the arithmetic, what that really means is nothing is going to happen unless there is some measure of bi-papartisansh and i certainly hope that we're going to be able to get there. >> senator, i want to quickly get you on the big story of the day which is the weather. your state, maine, looks to be in the path of this storm. you're a former governor of the state. you know what a state needs to prepare for an event like this. can you tell me, what was your biggest worry when you had a big storm headed your way when you served as governor? >> well, in fact, we had a
-in-chief. but democrats suggest that they're doing the country a disservice, near is harry reid. >> and press center unwarranted to stop or attempt to try to stop the secretary of defense and the cia director. we need the men and women need the secretary of defense, chuck hagel's imminently qualified to be that secretary of defense. >> and jack reed of rhode island and the senate armed services committee postponed a vote on hagel until this week and it could come up as early as this coming week, harris. >> anybody who thought this issue was going away, woefully underestimated it. steve centanni, part of the opposition of john brennan to head the cia is his role in creating a controversial drone program. it targets the suspected terrorists including those who and reveals that americans overseas can be targeted for killing without any kind of court order. officials simply have to determine that that person is a terror leader and a serious threat to the united states, and then it would be too dangerous to try to capture that person. tonight, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle speaking out about the i
of trying to protemenen, harry reid needs to remove the gavel. when the new york times is raising questions about his fitness to serve in light of, you know the allegations out there. what does at that tell you? that tells me that there's a problem. >> it tells me there's a problem with the newspapers. i don't know whether or not the new york times, and members of the senate unless there's something in the constitution i overlooked. >> sean: let me ask you a question about you. here you are, the head of the powerful house ways and means committee. you guys are in charge of writing tax law. and then all of these ethics issues comes out on you, and taxes. seriously, why did you allow that to happen knowing you spent all these years in congress and that that was going to hurt your reputation, why didn't you just pay the bill? >> actually, that case is not really over. and according to my counsel, jay goldberg, i don't think it would be proper for me he to discuss it further on your show, but i tell you one thing, when it is over, you'll be the first one to get the answers. >> sean: that's a pr
leader harry reid saying he's not going to let that happen. again, the white house at this hour, martin, still confident that hagel will be confirmed. >> and this in the context of what happened last night. what are your sources telling you about the likelihood of the president referencing north korea and its nuclear weapons test in his speech tonight? >> reporter: well, martin, my sources are telling me it is very likely that he is going to reference what happened in north korea overnight. remember, the white house put out a statement overnight condemning the action saying that it was a highly provocative action. i can also tell you that president obama spoke to the president of south korea today. they shared their concerns about this third nuclear launch, what is perceived to be really the most aggressive nuclear test that north korea has conducted to date. the u.n. security council con seming it, including north korea's closest ally in the region, china, condemning the action overnight. i think you can expect to hear president obama address this threat. my source is telling me he wil
is a prime example in places like new york, new jersey, california. gun control is popular. but harry reid also has democratic members from places like west virgina, arkansas, louisiana, and alaska where gun control can be dirty words. here is senator reid speaking recently about his conversation with california's dianne feinstein about an assault weapons ban. >> she's talked to me about her assault weapons ban, a new one. she believes in it fervently and i admire her for that. i will take a look at that. as i have indicated to you folks, we'll have votes on all kinds of issues dealing with guns and i think everyone will be well-sized to read the legislation before they determine how they're to vote for it. >> reporter: so a tricky act ahead for senator reid as he balances risking his members and their re-election bids in 2014 and 2016 and going ahead with the president's agenda. bottom line, he has some serious work ahead and it will be interesting to see what comes out from the president's pep talk with members today. jenna? jenna: i know you read all the legislation by the way before an
eternal. the president can sit down with harry reid tonight and work with senate democrats who have the majority in the senate to move a bill. it's time for them to act. i've made this clear for months now. and yet we've seen nothing. >> now, he wants them, senator, to move legislation that passed in the last congress. the last congress is irrelevant right now. you need new legislation in order to pass a bill. >> wolf, what's not irrelevant is last congress we had the tax increase. so now it's spending cut time. the president doesn't want to to the spending cut. we had the tax increase -- >> right now, to avert this fiscal crisis we have right now, these forced spending cuts, you need a new bill. you can't use a bill from the old congress. >> the president -- you know what, and i think scott walker, the wisconsin governor, said it, let the president come out and say, here's where we're going to cut $85 billion in spending. the bottom line is the president doesn't want to cut spending. it's $16 trillion in debt. he doesn't want to cut spending. >> he does want to cut spending but he
of representatives, went over to the senate and unfortunately harry reid not only didn't vote on the house version but the senate hasn't put forward its own proposal. i would encourage the president to work with harry reid and senate democrats to put forward their own alternative and hopefully go to conference and negotiate something between the house and the senate because both sides agree that it's better to use a scalpel than a hatchet. >> you're describing something there's just no way is going to be done in 48 hours so as much as you're optimistic -- >> i'm noptimistic. >> that's charming. >> chris frates with "national journal." i have a story the republican leadership wants to see if the sky falls, they will need to negotiate on sequester, if the cuts are not that bad they think they get some leverage and can roll the debate on the across-the-board spending cuts into a larger one about the debt ceiling this summer. is that a prudent way for house republicans to go forward on this, taking a wait and see? shouldn't your leaders be showing more leadership here? >> well i'm not sure that wait a
has a proposal. i don't think it's sound, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, we have done nothing in the senate. it is one thing to be the world's most deliberate body. it is another thing to be the most absent. we are not doing anything in the senate, so harry reid, please come up with one of your own proposals, put it on the floor, let's start voting. if you don't like what we are doing, come up with your own plan. now, as john said, republicans own this proposal on the sequestration idea. it was the president's idea, according to bob woodward broke, that we would agree to it. we got in this mess together, and we are going to have to get out the way and do it together. you are the commander in chief. do you really want a deal to destroy the military at the time we need it the most? you want to do that with asia? what about the low number of ships we have? if you exempt personnel, have you modernize the f16 and f18. our enemies would love this to happen. i am sure that iran is very supportive of sequestration. i am sure that al qaeda training camps all over the world woul
. the reason why it was defeated because the majority leader harry reid switched his vote to no so he could bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recease. a lot of republican senators were saying that they did not want this choice filibustered. even if they wanted to vote no on his nomination he at least deserves an up down vote in order to be approved. the republicans decided to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the attack in benghazi so they passed hagel when they come back. the way you're looking at it, to me, it is efforts to delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed as the secretary of defense. he just has to wait a couple of days. you're going to confirm himny way and it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to to do. host: harry reid set a new vote in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: well, they say they would like answers, again, from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do in the terrorist attack in libya. the white
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 57 (some duplicates have been removed)